Page references are given in square brackets in the translation. All these translations are works in progress and have not been checked for errors or readability. Readers are strongly advised to check the Latin text themselves.

Saturday, 12 September 2015

The Council of Aachen 862

Chapter 1. In the year 862, tenth indiction, on the third
kalends of May [29 April], on the convocation of the most glorious lord king
Lothar [II], the archbishops and their fellow bishops met at Aachen, that is
Gunthar archbishop of Cologne and archchaplain of the sacred palace, and
Theutgaud archbishop of Trier [p. 72], Adventius bishop of Metz, Atto bishop of
Verdun, Arnulf bishop of Toul, Franco bishop of Tongeren [Liège], Bishop Hunger [of Utrecht], and Rathold
bishop of Strasbourg. This was so that with the assistance of divine clemency,
they might be able to intervene faithfully and healthily with the already
mentioned most serene prince, for the utility and necessity of the holy mother
Church. For in our dangerous times, the pastoral trumphet should sound out even
belatedly, by prophetic admonition, where it is said “Cry, cease not, lift up
thy voice like a trumpet”.

So, faithfully thinking over many times God’s judgements for
the unfaithful, and the dangers of the world as it grows old, and not without
deep groans, we recalled our most Christian prince to remember that he should not
be unmindful of his vocation, and that what he is called by name he should
complete in deed, so that Christ the King of kings, who has made him the deputy
of His name on earth, will give back to him in heaven a worthy remuneration for the
dispensation entrusted to him.

To this he [Lothar], as a true worshipper of God, purely and
truthfully agreed to our Unanimity, promising unbreakably that he wished to
obey our advice in all things and comply with our reasoned admonitions. And as we
spoke in this way, he fashioned his most gentle attitude (affectus) with us, more than could be believed, so that it was clear without doubt that his
heart grasped the right hand of Him in Whose hands are the hearts of kings.

Chapter 2. Meanwhile, he reassured our Unanimity with
healthy responses and spiritual advice about those things which pertain to the
state of the holy Church of God and the utility of the realm and the safety of
the people committed to him, affirming that he was entirely ready in all
matters, so that he would be a true helper and an indefatigable assistant to
our order and the whole of holy religion.

Chapter 3. After this, he humbly and devoutly sought
pastoral advice, placing into the hands of our brothers a booklet of complaint
and of his very serious necessity.
Mournfully he asked for divine and pastoral advice, and with quavering
voice he again talked of the causes of his weakness (imbecillitas) – how he had been deceived in a certain woman named
Theutberga, by the seditious arguments of treacherous men. And indeed he recalled,
not by half measures, that he had endured the sentence of separation by the
judgment of the bishops. If she had been suitable for the marital bed, and had
not been defiled by the pestiferous pollution of incest, and publicly condemned
by a viva voce confession, he would willingly keep her.

But he confessed that he was
incontinent, and asserted that he was not able to bear the ardour of his youth
without conjugal union. He repeated that it was beyond doubt that we had
declared to him that Theutberga was incestuous, and had ordered him to abstain
from every concubine, and that it was extremely difficult for him to stay
like this [p. 73] in his youth. To this Archbishop Theutgaud was a witness that, according to divine and his own counsel, if he [Lothar] had committed any wrongdoing with
the concubine joined to him, he had very healthily expunged it, assisted
with ecclesiastical medicine, with secret and constant tears and vigils and
macerations of spiritual continence, and especially with donations of alms. And
to be brief about many things, if the rejoicing flesh had led him to sin, then
we believe the afflicted flesh brought him back to pardon.

Chapter 5. Therefore the concern of pastoral care and the
documents of divine speech began to stir up the souls of our brothers, about
what should be done and arranged, and what should be reasonably decided about
this proclamation and lament. And we were worried above all lest – may it not
happen – such a prince might, after a worthy satisfaction and a very healthy
reconciliation, incur the injury of fragility and return to his vomit, and like
a sow wallowing in mud, might sometimes seek illicit embraces.

Chapter 6. And so it came to pass that the pious Sollicitude
of our brothers decreed to be discussed again, how it had carried out the
censure of ecclesiastical authority on the already mentioned woman Theutberga,
as her public confession demanded.

Chapter 7. A volume of several councils was brought out, and
we had the fourth chapter from the Council of Lerida read out, where it is
written

“About those who stain themselves
in incestuous pollution. It was agreed that for as long as they persist in that
destestable and illicit marriage (connubium) of the flesh, they should only be
admitted in the church to the mass of the catechumens. And as the Apostle
ordered, it is not suitable to any Christians even to break bread with them.”

Chapter 8. In addition to this, the commentary of St Ambrose
on the letter of Saint Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, Chapter 32, it was
said by Lord’s mouth to those who were joined in marriage, that

“'the wife is not to leave her
husband, and if she does leave him, she should remain unmarried'. This is the counsel
of the Apostle, that if she leaves because of the bad behaviour of the husband,
she should remain unmarried, and that if she is not able to contain herself,
because she does not wish to fight against the flesh, then let her be
reconciled to her husband. For it is not permitted to the woman to marry, if she
has sent her husband away for the reason of fornication or apostasy, or if the
husband has sought the use of his wife impelled by illicit lust. For the
inferior does not use the same law as more powerful. If the man however
apostasises, let him not seek to invert the use of his wife: the woman is not
allowed to marry another, nor to return to him for the sake of fornication [?].‘And let not the husband put away his wife’. By implication, however: except
for the reason of fornication. And therefore he does not continue, as he did
for the woman in saying, ‘But if she does leave, let her remain thus’. For it
is permitted to the man to marry a wife, if he sent his sinning wife away. For a man is not constrained by the same laws
as a woman. For the man is the head of woman. 'For to the rest I speak, not the
Lord'. He says this to show what the Lord ordered through His own mouth [p. 74]
and what he conceded by his authority, for the Lord spoke through him who said
“Do you seek proof that Christ is speaking in me?”

Chapter 9. From the Council of Agde, Chapter 62.
‘We reserve
henceforth no mercy for incestuous unions, unless they cure the adultery by
separation. Incestuous unions (incestos), of which it
is wicked even to speak, are not to be denoted by the name of marriage.’
And
there after some other things, it is written ‘Those indeed to whom an illicit
conjunction is forbidden, will have the freedom of entering into a better
marriage.’

Chapter 10. For the rest, having clearly read these and
other canonical sanctions of this kind, and the statements of the holy father
Ambrose, we believe that she who was proven by a public (so it is said)
confession to be marked by the incestuous crime of fornication was (fuisse) not a suitable or legimate spouse,
nor a wife prepared by God. Therefore to our glorious prince, to whom not us
but indeed canonical authority forbids an incestuous marriage, and for his most
devoted affection in the divine cult and for his most victorious defence of the
kingdom, we do not deny the legitimate and suitable marriage conceded to him by
God, according to the indulgence spoken by the Apostle: ‘It is better to marry
than to burn’.

Document B: the Booklet
of proclamation of Lothar II

The Complaint of Lothar appealing to the Bishops about conceding
marriage to him.

O holy priests and venerable Fathers, you who are placed as
mediators between God and men, and to whom is committed the care of our souls,
who provide medicine to the wounds of sin, who have the power of binding and
loosing, and who are our doctors and leaders – to you I humbly proclaim, and
trustingly I demand your kindness and faithful counsel.

Royal power should
acknowledge the sublime authority of the sacerdotal dignity, by which two
orders the church of the believers by God’s will is ruled and guided. But we
know that one is as superior to another, as much as we rightly venerate the
excellence of heavenly teaching that is closer to God. Therefore we who offend
or lightly or wilfully stray by human frailty before God, we solemnly hasten
back and flee to your pastoral dignity. I myself, recognising my own errors by
the inspiration of divine clemency, and frightened by and shuddering at the
stains of such sins, I seek the remedy of salvation from Christ through you, by
suppliantly confessing and by demanding pardon. I trust greatly in your
Piety, and do not at all doubt that I
will be mercifully and measuredly accepted and treated in spiritual compassion,
[p. 75] according to what the Apostle says: ‘Who is weakened, and I am not
weakened?’ ‘For if someone is preoccupied in some sin, let you, who are
spiritual, instruct in the spirit of leniency, considering you yourself, that
you may not be tempted’. And another Scripture warns, ‘Do not break the crushed
reed’.

As the rest, Fathers, I thank you very much, since you kept
the faith owed to our lord father [Lothar I], and after his death you have been
kind and faithful to us in all things. And since you generally and in many ways
attended to our adolescence and unstable time of life, and also specially and
diligently watched out for the deceit
imposed on us through that above named wife. About that business, what was done
by your advice we know that you have deeply in memory. For by your order we separated from ourselves
that woman, who freely confessed about a terrible and incestuous contagion of
fornication, according the precept of Saint Paul, who said 'Do not mingle with
fornicators'. Whatever I have done afterwards in the fragility of incontinence
whether by necessity or will, it is your duty to emend opportunely and rationally,
and it is my duty willingly to obey.

For you know that I was brought up from infancy and
childhood amongst women, and that I desired to reach the threshold of
legitimate marriage, for the good of chastity and to avoid the wickedness of
indecency. I am not unaware that whatever is beyond licit union can be ascribed to the wickedness of fornication and noxious pollution. I know
that a concubine is not a wife, and I do not wish to have what is illicit, but
what is licit. You therefore, mindful of my youth, consider what I should
do, to whom neither is conceded a wife nor
is permitted a concubine. It is known to you that the Apostle says “I wish the
younger ones to marry, to procreate children”. And “Who cannot contain himself,
let him marry. For it is better to marry than to burn”. And again, “Let
everyone have his own wife for the sake of [avoiding] fornication. And the
Apostle Matthew: “God blessed marriage, and permitted love to rule in the bodies
of men”.

Therefore I speak straightforwardly, and I confess that I am
not at all able to endure without any conjugal bond. And in truth I wish to be
separated from all fornication ‘according to the inward man’. And now, my dear
ones, we suppliantly beg your Sanctity and beg for the love of Him who redeemed
us, that in the kindness of love and devoted fidelity, you will not defer from
aiding the peril of our body and soul, for the utility of the holy Church of
God and the kingdom committed to us: so that we may equally rejoice and exult
both in prosperity and in our most prompt devotion towards you.

Document C – the bishops’
judgement

When we, archbishops and bishops from various provinces of
the whole kingdom of the most serene king Lothar, had convened at the palace of
Aachen and were discussing ecclesiastical rights with pastoral care and
sollicitude, [p. 76] the case of our prince (princeps) was brought into our midst, whose marriage controversy we
had touched upon before [in manibus
fuerat evoluta]. Informed by the example and bolstered by the authority of the
great Lord pastor, that is Jesus Christ, who ‘came into the world to save
sinners’, and knowing that we can and should threaten sinners with the fear of
punishment if they do not come to their senses, and permit and concede mercy to
them if they do, we bitterly grieved for the aforementioned king, given to us
by God’s disposition and deceitfully wounded in his inexperience of his rule (regni tyrocinio), as we discovered. And
we carefully and faithfully struggled to rescue him from the net in which he lamented
he was caught, according to what the Apostle says: “If any of you err from the
truth, and one convert him, he must know that he who causeth a sinner to be
converted from the error of his way, shall save his soul from death” [James 5].

What we order to be bestowed upon all, in no way ought we
have to denied to our king and prince, who had humbly presented himself to our
earlier meeting [of Aachen 860?] and had lamented that he had been horribly cheated in the name
of marriage; and he added that he knew he was not able to continue without a
consort for his youth. And he brought forth a booklet of proclamation which
requested a path for his salvation, divinely inspired. Pitying his grief and anxiety, as was fitting, and having understood
his attitude of pure devotion (intellecto
pure devotionis affectu), we showed that he could delete previous sins
by the remedy of penance, and could guard against future ones by the display of
good works. He embraced this by necessity and willingly according to our
exhortation. Gathering some of our
colleagues, he set himself to fasting, almsgiving and other works pleasing to
God for the whole of Lent, hoping to placate God with a fitting satisfaction,
and he openly showed that he was wishing to deserve this by arriving barefoot.

Then in this council too he revealed the situation of his
fragility, and usefully and praiseworthily sought advice from us for his
salvation. Therefore, according to his petition and devotion, and most
carefully upholding the form of human piety and most vigilantly moderating the
censure of our ministry, we decreed that what we provided to him should be
committed to memory.

We learned from many proofs that the woman was more
imposed upon him by wicked intention than legitimately joined to him in the
name of a wife, and that she was not able to be a wife, which we recognised by many attestions, or rather detestations, and finally more clearly by her
spontaneous confession. How could she be joined in marriage, whom by her own
assertion her brother did not fear to defile? For as the Lord said to Moses, “Thou
shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy sister”, and as Moses himself terribly
intoned by the Lord’s inspiration, “Cursed be he that lieth with his sister,
the daughter of his father, or of his mother”. And another Scripture says “he
that keepeth an adulteress, is foolish and wicked”. And the Apostle: “he who is
joined to a harlot, is made one body”. And on this it is said in the Council of
Agde at Chapter 4 [Lerida!],

“Those who stain themselves in incestuous pollution. It was agreed that for as long as they persevere in that destestable and illicit union (contubernium) of the flesh, they should only be admitted in the church to the mass of the catechumens. And as the Apostle ordered, it is not suitable to any Christians even to break bread with them.”

And St Ambrose in the exposition of the first letter to the
Corinthians, chapter 34, writes, after he spoke to the unmarried and to widows,
he addressed those who were joined in marriage, with the Lord’s mouth,

“'the wife is not to leave her husband, and if she does leave him, she should remain unmarried'. [p. 77] This is the counsel of the Apostle, that if she leaves because of the bad behaviour of the husband, she should remain unmarried, and that if she is not able to contain herself, because she does not wish to fight against the flesh, then let her be reconciled to her husband. For it is not permitted to the woman to marry, if she has sent her husband away for the reason of fornication or apostasy, or if the husband has sought the use of his wife impelled by illicit lust. For the inferior does not use the same law as more powerful. If the man however apostasises, let him not seek to invert the use of his wife: the woman is not allowed to marry another, nor to return to him for the sake of fornication [?].‘And let not the husband put away his wife’. By implication, however: except for the reason of fornication. And therefore he does not continue, as he did for the woman in saying that, ‘But if she does leave, let her remain thus’. For it is permitted to the man to marry a wife, if he sent his sinning wife away. For a man is not constrained by the same laws as a woman. For the man is the head of woman. 'For to the rest I speak, not the Lord'. He says this to show what the Lord ordered through His own mouth and what he conceded by his authority, for the Lord spoke through him who said “Do you seek proof that Christ is speaking in me?”

Perhaps someone will say to this “What the Lord has joined,
let not man separate”. This is indeed excellent and most apt to be observed in
those whom the Lord has joined, for the wife will be prepared for the husband
by the Lord, as it is written elsewhere. But who will dare to say that this
woman was joined or prepared by the Lord, who according to so many and
important prohibitions of the Old and New Testaments is not to be joined in
union, but is rather to be mourned and handed over to the death of the body (interitum carnis), so that her spirit
may be saved, as is shown by the confession of her own lips? According to that
sentence, “For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou
shalt be condemned”. And David at once ordered
the man who boasted that he had killed Saul to killed, saying “Thy blood be
upon thy own head: for thy own mouth hath spoken against thee, saying: I have
slain the Lord’s anointed”.

And Pope Innocent wrote to the Tolesani, affirming that the
person can in no way be absolved who pronounces against himself a capital
sentence, whether in true confession or by false testimony, words that would be
punished in another, “For everyone who is the cause of his own death is a
greater murderer”. But this is also shown very abundantly from the letter of
Valentinian to the Friulians, and in the African Council Chapter 91.

If anyone should say that we have acted and decided irrationally and incautiously in this business, we who are not slothfully
imbued or weakly supported by these and other instruments of divine eloquence –
then let him know that unless he is cleansed of the stain of detraction and
unjust accusation, he will have a harsher reckoning with us before the tribunal
of eternal justice about these things.
For let us protest before God, that we have neither acted nor spoken
about this woman motivated by any spiteful poison or bitter zeal against her,
nor guided by the grace of any favour, but only according to what we found
needed to be done after most diligent examination and most studious enquiry,
more moderately and gently – saving the rule of canonical authority, which it
is permitted to not one to violate – as it is right to recognise from the
letters of our discussion written on this matter by us.

As for the prince and our lord Lothar, after the recognition
of his excesses and a suitable punishment in remarkable affliction for his
errors: knowing that according to his profession that there is a law in his
limbs repugnant to the law of his mind [p. 78], we are not able to forbid him
from marrying a wife and procreating children, lest he slip into worse things.
For as the Apostle says, “ Who cannot contain himself, let him marry”, only in
the Lord; “it is better to marry than to burn”. And again, “Let everyone have
his own wife for the sake of fornication”, which of course is a concession of
necessity, not of apostolic will, as he says again “I wish all men to be like
me”. And so we therefore do not at all dare to prohibit these things, so that
worse things can more easily be guarded against, and every pretext of unowed
opportunity may be avoided with more sollicitous custody.

It was commanded to two of our brothers separately (sequestratim) to entrust to writing this
chain of reasoning (series rationis),
which with the Lord’s inspiration we all together discovered. When each of them presented his text to the holy council
in the early morning after the night, our whole company praised it as filled
with a wonderful appropriateness of meaning (mira sensuum convenientia), and we thanked the Lord for the
concordant sentence. And so we decided to add this, that if the tenor of one of
the texts, discrepant in words, reaches anyone’s hands, let him not be
disturbed by the dissonance of speech, but rather be compelled to trust (fidem accomodare) by the consonance of
meaning (consonantia sensuum).